Best M42 lenses(?)

[no-X]

Stupid name for a thread, I know... but I miss this kind of list.

This is my opinion, I'd be happy, if anybody share his experience so I could append it to the list

fish eye

• Pelang 8/3.5 fish eye (thx2 DSG)
• Zenitar 16/2.8 fish eye (thx2 DSG)

14-19mm (rectalinear (non-fish eye) ultra wide-angle)

• Tokina 17/3.5 TL (thx2 DSG)

20mm (extreme wide-angle)

• CZJ Flektogon 20/4 (for architecture - lower distorsion)
• CZJ MC Flektogon 20/2.8 (for nature - sharper)

24-25mm (ultra wide-angle)

1. Zeiss Distagon T* 25/2.8 ZS
2. CZJ Flektogon 25/4

28-29mm (super wide-angle)

• ???
• Vivitar MC 28/2.8 /Komine/
• Vivitar VMC Series 1 28/1.9 /Tokina/

35mm (wide-angle)

• Zeiss Distagon T* 35/2 ZS
• CZJ MC Flektogon 35/2.4
• Vivitar 35/1.9 /Komine/
• Asahi S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5
• Asahi Super-Takumar 35/2 PRO

50-60mm (standard)

• Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 ZS
• Asahi S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
• CZJ MC Pancolar 50/1.8
• Tomioka MC 55/1.4
• Pentacon MC 50/1.8 (thx2 DSG)

70-90mm (portrait / short tele)

• CZJ Pancolar 80/1.8 (universal)
• CZJ Biotar T 75/1.5
• KMZ Helios 40-2 85/1.5 (portrait)

100-150mm (medium tele)

• CZJ MC Sonnar 135/3.5
• Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro (thx2 rayatphonix)

100-150mm (medium tele)

• CZJ MC Sonnar 180/2.8 (thx2 DSG)

[rayatphonix]

How about the Oly 28mm f 2.0? My favorite 28mm lens.

On the long end, Voigtlander 125mm macro. Possibly my favorite lens of any focal length.

In between, the Helios-40 85mm f 1.5. Nothing else like it (although to some that's a good thing).

[estudleon]

NO-X

And what happen if you must choose only one Flekt 20mm. F/2,8 or F/4?

Is the F/2,8 as good for arch as the F/4 and the F/4 as good for nature

as the F/2,8?. The answer is NO, endeed.

But in the compromise I prefer less sharpness and NOT distortion.

For my taste, the choose is the F/4 flekt

Rino

[no-X]

rayatphonix: Do you mean M42 version of Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro? As for the 28/2, I can't find any info about M42 version. Could you post any link or picture of this lens? Thanks!

estudleon: Each user can have different preferrences and that's why I mentioned both of them and didn't rank them numericaly. But I appreciate your opinion and I'm moving the 20/4 up

[DSG]

[Séamuis]

[no-X]

I like most of my Asahi lenses more than Zeiss lenses. The order doesn't mean quality (unless I marked them by ordinal numbers). I don't have Planar, I only own S-M-C, Pancolar and Tomioka and I consider S-M-C the best (bokeh, coating, extreme built quality... even the most well-worned Takumar I have ever tried, was mechanically superior to my "mintest" CZJ)

[estudleon]

The taste of each one is, endeed, a personal question. For somebody the SMC has a better bokeh, well, for others ( like me) the pancolar has the better bokeh. And It's OK for each one, isn't it?

I can say that if you need more DOF, the pancolar is usefull than the SMC because at F/8 and F/11 the panky is sharpest than the SMC - and for my experience, it's right.

And If you need use a F/2,8 or F/4, the SMC is the winner.

But both are usefull in overall cases and greats lenses, each choose your winner. I choose the Panky

Rino.

[patrickh]

I agree with Rino on this. I also think you will find that we have several threads like this one and they are all fun and informative. As you look at the pictures posted here and on other fora it becomes very clear that people all develop their own styles and much of that can be driven by the character of the lenses they own. Not all of us can afford Zeiss/Leica/Hassie etc. We have many contributors here who have the best value lenses out there and do incredible things with them. This thread is part of the fabric of what this forum is about - to display what older MF lenses can do, so that they can be treasured (not necessarily valued) for their often unique qualities.

Sermon over


patrickh

[DSG]

[quote="Séamuis"]

[estudleon]

[quote="patrickh"]I agree with Rino on this. I also think you will find that we have several threads like this one and they are all fun and informative. As you look at the pictures posted here and on other fora it becomes very clear that people all develop their own styles and much of that can be driven by the character of the lenses they own. Not all of us can afford Zeiss/Leica/Hassie etc. We have many contributors here who have the best value lenses out there and do incredible things with them. This thread is part of the fabric of what this forum is about - to display what older MF lenses can do, so that they can be treasured (not necessarily valued) for their often unique qualities.

Sermon over


patrickh[/quote]

Yes Patrickh.

Each member look for his own interest. For ones, it's a game and the lenses are like toys, and try one, two.......millars. For others who want to shows yours pics, the lenses are the medium to take pics, not toys. Anothers look for both, play and photography. Others.......


Then, the lenses will be differents things for each one and the comportment of each one will be relationed with the interes that may have.

Rino.

[Attila]

[quote=DSG]Its not just the name...The minute you try Zeiss, nothing else is as nice! [/quote]


Opinion always changing at least for me what is the best lenses.
After first AF lenses (Nikon, Olympus kit lenses+Sigma 70-300mm APO DG)
any old lenses was incredible good one, even if their price was only 10-20 EUR.

Now is different... when I able to use high class lenses like Zeiss 35mm f1.4 , Zeiss 135mm f2 , Zeiss 2.8/180mm now I know what does it mean ZEISS and lenses. I have many Takumar lenses none of them reach Zeiss quality , this not means they are not good lenses, it means Zeiss made one of the best lenses on the planet.

I strongly suggested what DSG said try once a lens from Carl Zeiss and look. if you think Carl Zeiss Jena is not better try some Contax lens !

[no-X]

[estudleon]

[quote="no-X"] My friend resells CZJ lenses and about 1/3 of them have stiff focusing or problems with diaphragm (quite typical problem is diaphragm working only in horizontal position - when you direct the camera up a bit, the blades don't respond...).[/quote]

Yes, I have a flek 35/2,4 with this prolems, lens to down and the blades closed to F/8 no more.

Have solution????

Rino.

[no-X]

He simply sells them for fraction of their real price

[estudleon]

The repairmen can't do anything??

[no-X]

I have no idea. Professional repairmen are very rare and expensive here. Almost mint MC Flektogon 35/2.4 costs about $100 and typical repair about $60...

[estudleon]

I will pass it to a new topic.

Thanks.

[DSG]

[no-X]

Yes, but I consider Pancolar and Takumar as direct competitors (similar timeframe, similar price range) and for me, Takumar is the winner. I can't compare incomparable. Newer Zeiss/Contax lenses can be better for sure, but they are a lot expensive too.

Here are samples of SMC 50/1.4, Planar T* 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4. Both of them are better than the Sigma and entire difference between SMC and Planar seems to come from sligtly shorter focal length of SMC (either the SMC is <50mm>50mm)

http://210.238.185.197/%7Emaro/lens_test/50_14_s_vs_t_56.jpg
http://210.238.185.197/%7Emaro/lens_test/50_14_s_vs_z_56.jpg

[estudleon]

[quote="DSG"][quote="no-X"][quote="DSG"]Because Carl Zeiss make better lenses than Pentax...Not just optically but mechanically too. [/quote]
I tested about 10-15 50/1.4 Takumars and each of them was in perfect mechanical condition. My friend resells CZJ lenses and about 1/3 of them have stiff focusing or problems with diaphragm (quite typical problem is diaphragm working only in horizontal position - when you direct the camera up a bit, the blades don't respond...).
[/quote]

But your talking about pre-fall of the Berlin wall- East German Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, not West German and Japanese Carl Zeiss lenses...The names may be very similar but there is a huge difference between the two in both mechanical and optical quality.
Carl Zeiss lenses are nice but at a price but Carl Zeiss Jena's are only worth a tenner! [/quote]

dsg

Not all the zeiss contax are better opticaly than czj.
The pancolar 50/1,8 is better optically, in my copies, than the planar 50/1,7 and 1,4.
The same I can say about the czj 135/3,5. It's better, for me of course, than the zeiss contax 135/2,8.

Rino.

[DSG]

[no-X]

[zewrak]

I am curious to know. This softness you speak of what versions of Takumar's are you talking about?

[no-X]

According to my experience, Takumar loses contrast rather than sharpness:

http://photoweb.xf.cz/lenses/set1.png

(the DS-M is sharpest WO Tomioka 5xmm lens I know)